Theinevitable has happened. From now on, the Budget of the autocratic
government of pogrom-mongers will contain a small item that has been
approved by the “people’s”— if you
please—representatives. It’s the first step that’s difficult, as the
French say; or as we say in Russia: the first glass must be forced down, the
second trickles down, and all the others glide down in a merry stream. The
Cadets have swallowed the first glass in company with the henchmen of the
autocracy.

Letus carefully trace the course of this historical event. The Minister of the
Interior and the Minister of Finance asked the Duma to grant 50 million rubles
for famine relief. “Legally”, the Ministers could not
obtain this money, could not take control of the relief campaign, without the
consent of the Duma. The Ministers did not ask the Duma who is to be in charge
of this campaign: “Legally”, it must in any case be in the
hands of the pogrom—mongers’ government. Nor did the Ministers indicate in
their proposal how the money is to be obtained. They merely said: “To
allow the Minister of Finance to procure.” It was only in the Committee that the
Ministers proposed that a loan be floated to provide the money. Yesterday,
however, the Minister of Finance bluntly stated in the Duma: “It is within
the competence of the State Duma to authorise procurements, but the manner of
procurement [we are quoting from Rech and take no responsibility
for the
style][1]
“is determined by the supreme
power.” Thus, all that the Ministers had to obtain from the Duma was an
assignment in general, but they were less concerned about the sources.

Twomain solutions of the problem, which we indicated the other
day,[2]
were at once put forward in the Duma. The Cadets proposed that a sum of 15 million
rubles be assigned with the proviso that an account of its expenditure be
submitted to the Duma, and that the amount be taken out of the “anticipated
savings” in the 1906 Budget. That, and nothing more. But the Minister of
Finance very coolly said in reply to the Cadets: “If the State Duma
decides to grant 15 mil lion rubles,the Ministry of Finance will release that
sum ...
but will release it not from anticipated savings but from other secured
items of expenditure.” After making the expenditure, the Minister “will
come to the State Duma and say: You compelled us to make an expenditure for which
we found no surpluses.”

Thus,the matter is as clear as daylight. The Minister simply spat in the face
of the Cadet Duma: We shall use your permission to take 15 million rubles, he
said in effect, but as for your decision about “savings”, it is just
empty words. The Minister did not hesitate to say that there would be no
savings. He did not hesitate to say that he was quite willing to obtain money by
assignment of the Duma, but he snapped his fingers at its advice about
“savings”.

Whatrole did the Cadet Duma actually play in this business? The role
of a witness called by the police to approve its expenditure of money
filched from the people. “Legally”, the signature of witnesses is
required for the appropriation of money. The police demanded the signature. The
Cadet Duma gave it. That is all the police wanted. The fact that the witnesses
kicked a bit, did not worry them in the least.

Butit was the Cadet Duma that played the part of police witnesses. The
Social-Democratic deputies took up an entirely different and correct
position. They spoke on the lines that we suggested the other day. “I
declare, gentlemen,” said Comrade Ramishvili in his excellent speech,
“that if we grant the government a farthing, even that farthing will never
reach the people.” In their resolution, which we published
yesterday, the Social-Democrats quite rightly said that no money should
be given to the autocratic government, that the State Duma ought to set up
its own relief committee, send its members to the affected areas
and invite the co-operation of “free public organisations”. The
Social-Democrats turned their resolution into a revolutionary appeal to the
people which branded the government as “the real culprit responsible
for the famine”, squandering the people’s money on waging war against
the people. The Social-Democrats demanded the cessation of
expenditure on the gendarmerie, the political police, the rural mounted
police, and so forth; they demanded a reduction in the salaries and
pensions of high-placed drones and an audit of the cash balance and
accounts of the Treasury. They also quite rightly demanded that the
revenues from crown, church and monastery lands be used for famine
relief. The Social-Democrats openly indicted the old regime as a whole, and
all its organs, and also criticised the whole Budget.

Howdid the Duma vote? The Cadets won, of course. According to the unanimous
statements of a number of newspapers, the Trudoviks voted with the
Social-Democrats (unfortunately, a roll-call vote was not taken). The
political alignment is becoming more and more distinct. The Octobrists and
Cadets are in favour of coming to terms with the old regime. The
Social-Democrats and Trudoviks are strongly opposed to this. The vigorous and
united action of the Social-Democrats not only won over the peasants, but even
caused a slight split among the Cadets. Not only the Left Galetsky, but even the
Right Kuzmin-Karavayev was ashamed of playing the role of police witness. It was
the Cadets, and the Cadets alone, who put the shameful signature of the
“people’s representatives” to the assignment of money to the
pogrom-mongers.

Thissignature of the Cadet Duma is of enormous importance in principle. Naive
people and short-sighted politicians often say: The accusation that the Cadets
are traitors and want to make a deal with the bureaucrats is ground less and
premature. But this assignment of money to the pogrom-mongers’ government is
just such a deal—and strictly speaking, not the first. Look at the
miserable shifts the Cadets resort to in their attempts to justify themselves.
This is a compromise, yells Nasha Zhizn, but it is justified by the
temporary circumstances. Of course, gentlemen, all compromises between the
bourgeoisie and the police autocracy have always been attributed to temporary
circumstances.

Butthe peasants need immediate relief! Have not the peasant deputies betrayed
the peasants? What do you think, gentlemen of the Cadet Party? The peasant
deputies voted against the grant because they know better than you do where the
money would go after passing through police hands. Why could not the State Duma
take this matter in its own hands?

Thatis utopian, impracticable; we must reckon with the available organisation
until it is changed by law—is the unanimous cry of the Heydens,
Kokovtsovs, Milyukovs, and even the Bernsteinians of Nasha Zhizn. Yes,
gentle men, the bourgeoisie always regards the abolition of all the organs of
the old regime as utopian because it wants to use these organs against the
proletariat and against the revolutionary peasantry. In a police-ridden class
state there will always be an endless amount of “urgent”
expenditure. Once they have been engaged officials must be maintained; con
tracts that have been concluded must be paid for, and so on and so forth. There
will always be an “available organisation” (namely, the
police-bureaucratic organisation) which it is “impossible” to
change at one stroke, without the consent of the Council of State, and so on
and so forth.

Suchexcuses will always be found. These are the excuses that the liberal
bourgeoisie hands out to credulous people in every country. These excuses are
the natural screen with which the bourgeoisie tries to cover up its betrayal of
the cause of the people’s freedom.

Theproletariat will always fight this hypocritical game. It will call upon the
people to fight against all the organs and institutions of the old regime; to
fight through the medium of the free organisations of the working class and the
revolutionary peasantry.